Hello, all, Like everyone on the forum, I read with dismay Jim Zwick's note about _Huck Finn_ and "A Rose for Emily" (one of my favorite stories that I teach whenever I can) creating a "hostile work environment" and therefore at risk of banishment. I forwarded Jim's note to a friend who's been an attorney for a number of years. His response to me is below. We may not have as much reason to worry as we feared. ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT READING LEGAL OPINIONS WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO EXTRACT A LITIGANT'S CONTENTION AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT. THE REASON I EVEN LOOKED THIS UP IS THAT I COULDN'T BELIEVE THE 9TH CIRCUIT WOULD HAVE ISSUED SUCH A RULING. THE DECISION ACTUALLY STANDS FOR THE PRECISE OPPOSITE PROPOSITION. THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A COURT TO INTERFERE WITH A SCHOOL'S CURRICULUM, ESPECIALLY BASED ON CONTENT. THEY DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT. THE "QUOTE" IN HIS MESSAGE FROM THE OPINION DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BODY OF THE OPINION. THIS IS ALSO NOT A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CASE, AS WAS CONTENDED IN THE MESSAGE; THE BASIS OF THE CASE IS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. ALSO, HIS REFERENCE TO A MARYLAND COURT DECISION BANNING ANGELOU AND MORRISON WORKS FROM THE SCHOOLS SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST (I DID A TWO YEAR RETROACTIVE SEARCH). IN FACT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES REPORTED THAT THE MARYLAND SCHOOL BOARD VOLUNTARILY WITHDREW THOSE WORKS FROM THE CURRICULUM BECAUSE THEY WERE "TRASH" AND "ANTI-WHITE." THE VAGUE REFERENCE IN THE MESSAGE TO ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION REGARDING CURRICULUM IS UNVERIFIABLE. My friend is doublechecking, but it looks like the student's complaint was not upheld by the court. If I get any additional information, I'll pass it along. Jim McWilliams